A couple of days ago I stopped adding any salt or Braggs to my food. Fortunately, I haven't missed it and don't have cravings. However, today my sinuses aren't as clear as they have been and one "taste bud" on my tongue has gotten swollen and tender. Are these detox symptoms?


My favorite raw vegan

There is a difference between salt that is part of a plant and salt that is not.
The body recognizes plant (bio available) salt and digests it easily.
The salt that is not plant chelated (inorganic) is not recognized or utilized by the body and has to be dealt with as a toxin.
Getting inorganic salt out of the body requires the body to detox and will have a detox experience.
Plant chelated, bio available salt won't cause any detox.
Inorganic salt can be found as a pile of chemicals like table salt or the pile of chemicals can be mixed with a liquid like water.
Salt that is bio available is "food".



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/22/2010 05:48PM by EZ rider.

How about Celtic salt?

Celtic Sea Salt is a brand of sea salt. [en.wikipedia.org]

One way to get salt for a salt shaker is to dehydrate at a low temperature a food that is high in organized salt like celery. Then put the dried celery or high sodium food through a coffee grinder or other tool to make it into a powder. The result will be a food powder that is high in natural plant salt.

Mmmm, celery salt. That sounds tasty.

EZ rider Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The salt that is not plant chelated (inorganic) is
> not recognized or utilized by the body and has to
> be dealt with as a toxin.


This isn't true.

communitybuilder -- I stand by what I said and I believe it to be true.

EZ rider, you are spot-on in your analysis of salt. My experience over 13 years of eating raw has shown this to be true.

EZ,

This has been stated before on this site, but I can't find any scientific studies to back your claim. Do you know any?

I tend to agree with CB on this issue, can you find anything to convince us otherwise?

Thanks!

IIRC, Norman Walker discussed the organic vs. inorganic salt issue from a scientific standpoint in his books.

I believe it is also a tenet of Natural Hygiene.

swimmer, I think this is WAY too "nutritionally advanced" a topic for scientific studies to have been done on it yet.

However, if you want to know the truth, simply eat a 100% raw diet without ANY exogenous (added) salt for at least one month – that is, ZERO salt on your food for 1 month (or, preferably, 6 months or more). Then eat something with added salt (of any kind) and watch what your body does with it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/26/2010 05:15PM by Omega.

Omega,

I've done exactly that.

I was completely salt free for my first 2 years raw. I had problems staying hydrated, low blood pressure, and dizzy spells. Blood tests showed low chloride levels. I added sea salt to my diet and within a couple of days felt better. Now my chloride levels are normal.

My body is far better for it. now, years later, I find I need salt, if I go mono for a while, and don't add salt, I get the same hydration and BP problems again.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/26/2010 05:38PM by swimmer.

Interesting swimmer. When I was strictly salt-free for about my first 3 years raw, I was drinking large quantities of vegetable juice and so had no hydration issue, however I did get dizzy spells when standing up from a seated position. But, I've read that that is normal when starting a raw food diet (Arnold Ehret even wrote about it in Mucusless Diet).

I had blood tests done then, and everything was normal.

After that experience, whenever I eat even a small quantity of salt, within 10 or 15 minutes my body creates phlegm for me to expectorate, and that phlegm is EXTREMELY salty, which says to me that my body is clearly rejecting the salt (happens with dulse flakes, for example).

Okay, so that is just me, one person's constitution. It does not mean everyone needs to add salt. But it does mean added salt gives my body what it needs that it was not getting from food. The salt is not a toxin to me, it is utilized.

Salt is way, way over consumed by the general population. These extreme amounts make it toxic. But salt has a very weak chemical bond and it is broken down rapidly in the body. Sodium and chloride are necessary for life. If you body does not have enough, problems occur.


I just saw your post so I edited to add:
If your getting enough salt from food then you don't need it and your body is removing the excess in mucus. But I don't think your body is rejecting the sodium or chloride because it is not from plant form. I could be wrong, but if plant and non plant sodium or chloride molecules are differently organized, The shold be a scientific model showing the difference. If one can be modeled, the other could be, right? Science is advanced enough to prove a theory as simple as this.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/26/2010 06:18PM by swimmer.

If people could get their minerals (including salt) from eating unorganized minerals then they could eat a car engine block to get their iron.

It's amusing, but taking an argument to the absurd does not prove anything or add to the debate.

Can you define an "unorganized" mineral as compared to an "organized" mineral in verifiable scientific terms for me? I"m not sure what you mean. In what part of the photosynthesis process does a mineral become "organized"?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/26/2010 08:07PM by swimmer.

Quote

Can you define an "unorganized" mineral as compared to an "organized" mineral

An organized mineral is a mineral that has been brought into a plant and has been organized by the plant so that it is one with the plant.

An unorganized mineral is one that has not been bonded so that it is part of the plants structure.

Thanks! But is that definition scientific?

Anything absorbed within an organism could be considered "being one" with that organism. What is going to cause it to "reorganize"?

How does this organization occur, at what point in an atom changed?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/26/2010 08:38PM by swimmer.

swimmer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I just saw your post so I edited to add:
> If your getting enough salt from food then you
> don't need it and your body is removing the excess
> in mucus. But I don't think your body is rejecting
> the sodium or chloride because it is not from
> plant form. I could be wrong, but if plant and non
> plant sodium or chloride molecules are differently
> organized, The shold be a scientific model showing
> the difference. If one can be modeled, the other
> could be, right? Science is advanced enough to
> prove a theory as simple as this.

Hi swimmer,

I just made a vegetable juice with celery, cucumber, and parsley, and the celery happened to be quite salty (I wish it were always like that). Anyhow, I've had 16oz so far and have experienced no rejection of the sodium by my body. This was expected, to be honest, because I've never experienced "endogenous" salt rejection in the 13 years that I've been raw. OTOH, every single time that I add dulse flakes or some other form of salt to my food, my body always rejects it (every single time).

Perhaps our bodies are different, and we react differently to salt. Regardless, I support you in doing what works best for you!

EZ rider, I have alot of respect for your opinions on these boards, but I think your insults against swimmer were really uncalled for. Maybe you're just having a bad day.

Hypernatremia is certainly possible. There are stories of people adrift at sea drinking straight sea water. One case study is of a person who ate a whole box of sodium bicarbonate every day. When the excess is ceased the body should be able to get back to equilibrium quickly using the sodium-potassium pump and kidneys, though it takes the body 7 days to 7 weeks to adjust to major changes in the sodium/potassium ratio.. best to adjust gradually, the body not liking sudden changes in this ratio.

An animation of the sodium-potassium pump--

[highered.mcgraw-hill.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/26/2010 10:32PM by loeve.

Omega,

Very interesting. It sound really tasty!
For the individual, I guess it comes down to ones constitution. I suspect you would be more of the norm, since I know of no other raw foodest who need salt like me.

I wonder how much sodium and chloride that juice contained, and how that would compare to the small amount of sea salt I add to a meal...

Thanks, a very interesting point to ponder...

leove, that is cool! Thanks!

Cool swimmer, yeah sodium is sodium, Na+ is Na+ .... doesn't matter if it's in the sea, a glass of water or the blood stream, IMO. It would take a super nova to change the structure of the sodium atom.

And I too use sea salt and have nothing against table salt. Three billion years of evolution in the sea, sodium and chloride both being essential nutrients scarce in plants and tasting good is too much for me to ignore.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/26/2010 11:30PM by loeve.

Yes, that's True Loeve! (lol no pun intended)

Here is a photo of a salt crystal, and a molecular model of salt:
[www.classzone.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/26/2010 11:55PM by swimmer.

Here is a good description of sodium: [www.healthy.net]

And one of chloride form the same site: [www.healthy.net]

When any animal is low in minerals it will naturally eat salt or clay or lick rocks to replenish it's reserves. In the wild there are no prejudices about the right & wrong way to sustain life, the important thing is just to do it.

The assertion that minerals found outside of life forms are "unorganized" and cannot be used by lifeforms is simply make believe. If that were true plants would not be able to absorb the minerals in the first place. It may be slightly easier to absorb plant based minerals than, say, minerals in a clay or salt solution (though it may not be) but to state that inorganic minerals are treated as "toxins" is simply false & deliberately misleading.


swimmer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's amusing, but taking an argument to the absurd
> does not prove anything or add to the debate.

So are you saying you're not man enough to eat a car engine swimmer?

Narz,

All that says is that animals can get addicted to the same substances that humans can. In Yosemite national park, bears will break into cars to eat Snickers bars and potato chips. Does that mean these foods are healthy because some animal chose to eat it?

Humans are animals too, and substances to which human can be addicted are also substances to which animals can be addicted. And when those animals eat those addicting human foods, they end up with the same diseases humans get. Case in point are the diseases found in domesticated animals that are not found so readily in the undomesticated counterparts in nature.

CB,

I think I ate a Gremlin (GMC) once. Gave me awful heartburn. That was before my vegan days.

Bryan,

Thank you for cleaning up this thread.

Bryan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Narz,
>
> All that says is that animals can get addicted to
> the same substances that humans can.

You're grasping at straws Bryan. There is nothing addictive about the way animals seek out & accquire minerals. They will often make long journeys to particular spots with mineral deposits, get their fill & then depart. They don't hang around & suck down salt like it's crack.

> In Yosemite
> national park, bears will break into cars to eat
> Snickers bars and potato chips. Does that mean
> these foods are healthy because some animal chose
> to eat it?

That's not even response-worthy.

> Humans are animals too, and substances to which
> human can be addicted are also substances to which
> animals can be addicted. And when those animals
> eat those addicting human foods, they end up with
> the same diseases humans get. Case in point are
> the diseases found in domesticated animals that
> are not found so readily in the undomesticated
> counterparts in nature.

Not sure how this is relevant, since, as I said, there is nothing at all addictive about how animals supplement in the wild & I am talking about wild and not domestic animals. Actually you are proving my point, domestic animals often get sick because they cannot self-medicate as wild animals can.

If anyone is genuinely interested in the subject (how animals in the wild naturally correct imbalances & fight off disease) you might want to check out the book Wild Health which I find educational (& entertaining).

I just couldn't resist!


I saw this banner yesterday at the hospital where my mom is recovering from open heart surgery. I didn't have a camera, so it's just a cell phone pic. It just seems to belong on this thread!



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/30/2010 06:00AM by swimmer.

I have heard that you can die if you do not EVER eat ANY salt?

I agree that salt, like all foods, should be eaten in a form that is unaltered as possible. However, having absolutely NO salt, EVER, can apparently be dangerous.

I am not suggesting that it is necessary to have salt daily, but it makes sense to have a teeny sprinkling of salt at least twice a week, to get the right sodium/potassium/mineral balance?

The Yamamoto Indians of Brazil use no added salt, have wonderfully low blood
pressure and a life expectancy of 48 years. They live in the interior of the
continent away from sources of salt. Maybe 48 years is very good for a remote
tribe. Still death from "all causes" goes up at high and low extremes of
nutrient intakes...



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/30/2010 12:16PM by loeve.